I’m Bhuddist and this is really offensive.
2
As a practicing meditator, I read this shaking my head in disbelief. It's unhelpful and superficial columns like these that make people run far, far away from Buddhist thought. It improves neither the understanding of Buddhism nor the understanding of Trump.
2
Buddhists would say that there is no inherently-existent thought, no inherently-existent process of thinking and no inherently-existent "I" that does the thinking. It is all a dependent-arisings that lack inherent existence. There is just the thinking but no one doing it. What this has to do with Trump or this misleading article is beyond me, Trump is the least Buddhist person I can think of. Anyone who says anything about Trump is Buddhist in any way has zero understanding of Buddhism.
1
Referring to yourself in the third person is a literary device called "illeism" after the use of it in Caesar's Gallic Wars. For more on this, see the wikipedia article on "illeism." I doubt that Trump has much familiarity with Caesar or Xenophon. Perhaps he picked up the habit from QB Doug Flutie, who was known to use it as well. But it's very easy to read too much into a verbal habit.
3
Jim thinks that this Buddhist philosophy is probably a good thing for most people, and almost certainly is a good thing for politicians, who always take themselves too seriously. After all, just by being a politician, Jim believes they are stating that they are more important, that they should be the ones making rules for the rest of us. Jim thinks that most politicians would benefit a little from a lot more humility. But Jim still thinks Trump is just plain nuts.
To those thinking Buddhism is being insulted and to those not even reading the piece I say, lighten up. To me, the piece is a well setup joke ending with the punchline of the final sentence. Bravo!
1
Yeah, right. If referring himself is his Buddhist Zen then achieving world's biggest Megalomania would be his Nirvana!
The use of the third person in place of the first isn't inherently narcissistic. Trump is just a narcissist who sometimes uses that construct. It probably has to do with the way he thinks of himself as a brand called Trump, not just a person.
I've got Bob Dole on the line. He says "Bob Dole isn't a narcissist." And I'll grant him that, at least by the (admittedly low) standards of garden-variety powerful politicians.
Example of the "pre"-"trans" fallacy described by Ken Wilber.
Donny Trump has no wisdom, accidental or otherwise. He is ignorant of anything not having to do with how to make himself more important or how best to ruin someone with whom he is interacting.
1
The height of absurdity. This is actually offensive.
1
Not sure why people are so offended,
Ben makes it clear in the last line that he highly doubts that trump has a grasp of Buddhist teachings, and correctly attributes his behavior to a personality disorder
Ani thinks this article is awesome:)
6
Is it a bad sign that you don't know what you'd call yourself if you began referring to yourself in the third person?
This sounds like dissociation.
Please try to keep Trump out of a discussion of Buddhism. He is the exact opposite of everything Buddhist: egotistical, irrational, cruel, un-empathetic, ignorant, greedy, power-hungry, un-mindful, and so on. I suspect Ben (or his editors) just wanted a catchy headline and hook for the reader. David doesn't doubt that.
1
Thanks for the laughs.
You missed a step. Your disembodied thought should not read 'Jim can't stand potatoes'. If you are truly detached, it should read, 'Jim thinks he can't stand potatoes.' The 'inner' narrator needs to find a way to be 'outer'.
Much respect for your purposeful thoughts.
I think too many respondents have missed the irony here . . . see the last line! The writer may be a little off in his description of non-self, but he is playing here with the use of the 3rd person, trying to underline Trump's extreme ego. He gets it mostly right in emphasizing that Buddhist meditation practice is very much about detachment, the letting go of craving and aversion (I hate this, I want that), as if our happiness depends on these things. Instead, equanimity is necessary for compassionate action in the world.
1
I can't help but wishing you well on your journey, though I disagree with you.
I seem to remember that when first struggling with language toddlers often refer to themselves by their name.
1
Based on the headline I wasn't expecting much from this article, yet I still managed to be disappointed.
Talking about oneself in the third person has nothing to do with the Buddhist teaching of not-self. However I suspect that Trump talks this way because his point of reference is always to himself as an object worthy of worship. He thinks of himself from the point of view of his adoring admirers, and so that's how he talks. This involves an exaggerated sense of self, not a diminished one.
2
Even more essential to Buddhism than "no-self" or "non-self" (a useful tool in meditation) is the concept, taught by the Buddha, of the "Buddha-nature". This is a way of explaining the potential of everything, not just Homo Sapiens, but amimals, rocks, trees, anything that has form, to achieve the ultimate enlightenment of a Buddha. Even Trump.
4
??? Perhaps there is a school of Buddhism that espouses the notion that the historical Buddha taught that everything has Buddha nature and I am just not aware of it. In my part-time study of the Dharma over the last 5 years I have learned that our human birth is precious because our human birth alone, provides the opportunity to awaken. Rocks, insects, transistor radios, tomatoes, etc. not so much.
C Ember: "our human birth is precious because our human birth alone, provides the opportunity to awaken"
Not our human birth alone. The Buddha taught that the opportunity of being born in the human realm provides the extremely rare and precious chance to attain complete enlightenment IN this very lifetime. "Rocks, insects, transistor radios, tomatoes, etc." as I understand it, will take longer.
Anyone who comes to understand the the importance of this principle will go to extremely great lengths to not harm other sentient beings. And those who vow to help others attain this are called Bodhisattvas. Even Trump could do this.
Mr Dolnick, I'm afraid you've been lead astray in Buddhist teachings, what you're paraphasing is akin to a fortune cookie explaination of the self in Buddhism.
Buddhists don't walk around talking about themselves in the third person, in my 30 years as a practicing Buddhist I have never heard any of my teachers, monks, or abbots refer to them in the third person. I have never read in any Buddhist scripture Buddha or holy man refer to themselves in the third person.
In fact Buddhist would regard the way Trump refers to himself and others the very antithesis of a person seeking enlightenment or self improvement.
To give readers the correct concept of non-self, practicing Buddhists must "recognize" the self and all that makes up the self, the past the present and the future. The ability to understand the causal nature of your past and present allows you to make decisions for the future; in that way you can change the self. That malleable nature is the true meaning of non-self. Trump exhibits none of this reflection.
7
Get a sense of humor someplace. Thirty years -- geez. Pull rank much?
Trump is about as Buddhist as a turnip.
14
All headlines like this should be accompanied by an image of someone (presumably the author? the editor? the reader?) hiding their face in shame.
7
I think he refers to himself as Trump because "Trump" isn't a real human being. "Trump" is something he created in his mind and identifies with. His "Trump" is brilliant, respected, charismatic, all-knowing, and has a full head of natural hair.
In other words, "Trump" is what he wishes he was. His exact opposite.
5
This is a bit funny/ironic. As I understand the latest from evolutionary psychology, "you" are exactly your thoughts and feelings -- there is no "you" who has those thoughts and feelings; there are only the thoughts and feelings. There is no "I." See, e.g., Steven Pinker, "How the Mind Works," and Daniel Dennett, "Consciousness Explained."
Thus to say "Ben hates turnips" is a reasonable statement -- one can see,l hear, tough the entity referred to as Ben -- while "I hate turnips" mistakenly implies that there is an "I" who exists separately from this hatred.
Got it? Not sure I do... But I really doubt it has anything at all to do with the thoughts and feelings of the central nervous system we refer to as Donald Trump.
4
(Part II)
To go back to Dennett: he rejects Cartesianism in the sense that he claims that there is no "little man" inside our head, who observes our thoughts and feelings, and that we can call "consciousness" or "me". There are only those thoughts and feelings themselves, so having them IS perceiving them at the same time. His argument is that IF there would have been a "homunculus" or little man inside each man, then in order for "us" to know what that little man perceives (thoughts and feelings in the brain), we'd need yet another little man, perceiving what the first little man perceives, if not we wouldn't know either, and so on, which doesn't make any sense.
For Buddhism, however, exactly the opposite is true: there IS a "skill" inside each one of us that can be called "awareness", and that is separate from the thoughts and feelings we're having. In a "sounds and thoughts" meditation, for instance, you first observe the sounds as they happen in the world around you, and then shift to observing the thoughts that cross your mind as you're sitting there. And the more you train this kind of awareness (which Descartes called "attention" - even though of course there are many differences between him and Buddhism), the clearer you can observe things, inside and outside yourself.
You ALSO start to notice, however, that just like sounds, those thoughts appear and disappear, if you just "watch", and don't cling to them. As if they have a life of their own, and are not "you".
1
(Part I)
The books you mention are decades old, so not exactly "the latest" (and contain mostly philosophy, not science).
That being said, you could indeed wonder what the difference is between the Buddhist "you are not your thoughts and feelings", and Dennett's theories. I'd tend to think that the difference lies in the fact that Dennett proposes an ontology (= theory about what is and what "being" means) that is based on Hume's empiricism, which was an "atomism", whereas Buddhist ontology is the exact opposite of atomism.
For Hume and Dennett, all that exists are isolated events. It's the human mind that, when certain events tend to reproduce themselves, starts linking them together in terms of cause and effect (when I hit a fellow little boy and he cries, "I" am the cause of his suffering), whereas you can only prove that one event is always followed by the other, not that the one truly caused the other. In the same way, human beings don't have some kind of "substance" that is like a box containing all my thoughts and feelings (the box being "me"). There are only those thoughts and feelings, period.
In Buddhism though, EVERYTHING is connected. Separation is an illusion. So it's not "you" who made that boy cry, it's the fact that you're angry, which itself is caused by the fact that you didn't meet anyone yet who taught you how to manage your anger. If your anger would not have been there if you'd already have met someone like that, how can you call it "your" anger?
Joel - you make more sense than the article.
As most people on the spiritual path may know, for every high level emotion or state of being there is a "lower level mockery" that masquerades as the higher one. Whether it is a psychotic claiming to take responsibility for every war, or the deluded religionist who claims to have had a personal conversation with God, each of these is a lower-level version of the higher actual states which have been experienced by others. The danger is we may tend to discount the possibility of the real ones based on our reactions to these "mockeries". To me Ben's experience of being exterior to his mind and body, also appear to be low-level copies and not the real thing.
1
Brian believes that the President's references to himself in third person, his tweets and condescending attitudes towards those who aren't OWM stems from a deeply buried anger. Why don't we hear more about "Mama Trump" and her influences.
1
"Ben highly doubts it."
Is that the Ben which is not being 3rd person Ben, or the Ben which is?
Isn't a "virtuous" circularity like Buddhism as described still a begging the question fallacy? I know, says who to whom?
2
As I have been taught, to some extent all sentient beings are "accidental" Buddhists, to the extent that all sentient beings have inherent enlightened nature. What is missing, sadly, from our president is the aspiration to help prevent and/or eliminate suffering in others. Also his lack of basic personal discipline.That doesn't mean, however, that this aspiration will not awaken within his mind-stream. I'm struck by all the responses from alleged "Buddhists" here who say that Buddha's doctrine could not possibly apply to Mr. Trump. As a president he has been deplorable, but that doesn't mean that he isn't headed towards awakening, as are all sentient beings. While there is no "blind faith" in Buddhism, there is always hope.
6
Not since Leon Lett have I seen such an amazing goal-line fumble. Ben needs to stop doubting and trust his instincts. Trump absolutely *is* doing all of these things deliberately, and he keeps winning.
2
The article construct was a bit of a sensational way to talk about this practice as a tool of awakening, especially when DJT is (probably-who can say) using this as a way to support his attachment to his brand... and from the comments, obviously the article pushed a lot of buttons. But I'm just happy to hear others talk about how they are trying to awaken. I practice with this as well, but refer to myself instead as "being with the human" or "person Jill."
2
My Buddhist training taught " thinking" - not "Ben thinking".
8
Oh yeah! A true indication of Trump's enlightenment is the luminescence coloring in his hair. When he holds a hand mirror to his face he asks "Ahh doesn't it look good on us, Donald?"
8
Well after reading the piece on Liberals taking their fingers out of their ears...which after reading it and the comments made me feel that I had just watched a great debate...and then jumping to this which made MK laugh out loud and the comments too...well...thank you NYT. For pennies a day you provided me with my evening's entertainment.
10
This is either a sad attempt at humor or some form of sarcasm - neither of which make any sense. If Trump is just a literary device to write about speaking in the third person, that's another bad idea.
Trump and his administration are the antithesis of Buddhist principles and practices. I used to think the Times was better than this.
We are all sinking lower.
8
Pat thinks its humorous.
Although she had assumed it was meant as 'the royal 'We'.
Ben Dolick, please, you shouldn't write about anybody trying to view the evil Trump with the faint thought of trying to even understand him and thus forth having a flicker of compassion and/or sadness for the man. It's, don't ya know, to close to the teachings of Christianity? Can't have that going on in this supposedly Christian country.
Thank you for explaining the essence of Buddhism. The Buddha and the Christ have a lot in common.
1
Not !
Pardon me, but how's YOUR meditation going?
And also, then, of course, how's my meditation going?
A lot of Dharma teachers are looking at this and wondering if you all lost your minds. Or took a short cut because who cares anymore.
3
How did ourselves find a way to make a guy like dt our president, This does not paint a rosy picture.
A rosy picture is I'm house hunting in Canada.
3
Trump is about as far away from non-self as it is humanly possible to get, third person self-referral or not. He is the very opposite, harboring as he does a Narcissistic personality disorder, with its complete and total self-absorption.
7
hmmm. bruce thinks that ben doesn't follow sports. bruce believes that if ben did, ben would realize that ath a leets do it all the time.....
2
Reminds me of the Jewish mother's query, "If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?"
11
WRONG on so many levels.
2
Jeremy found that headline deeply upsetting and hard to swallow. He almost didn't read the article, but he did and feels thankful for it.
4
Excellent article! Indeed, it appears that Trump separates himself from his ego, but not for the purpose of self-consciousness, but rather to defend and reinforce his ego. It's both offensive and defensive move that confounds his enemies and endears his supporters.
6
I'm reminded of reading William Manchester's "American Caesar." When faced with the Bonus March in Washington, Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur informed his aide, Lt. Col. Dwight D. Eisenhower, "MacArthur has decided to take command in the field." Very Caesarian. As in his writings, Julius Caesar always referred to himself in the third person.
1
Gollum (Tolkien)...
2
When Trump objectifies himself he sees himself in the mirror, where a transformation occurs. In that immaculate place he doesn’t mistreat women, isn’t intellectually challenged and every day is a Good Hair day. The mirror image is his Mr. Hyde and Trump thinks Hyde is running the country. Trump has no second thoughts, guilt or remorse because Hyde is in charge. Unfortunately, it's the rest of us who have to deal with Dr. Jeckyll.
3
Ahh, the problem of language. Self reference can be many things but I enjoyed Ben's essay, it put a smile on my face. As a long time Buddhist meditator my take on Trump is a giant manifestation of misery personified. It's truly sad.
4
Enjoyed the essay , made me think more about the where his head may or may not be.
I've been a studying, practicing Buddhist for 41 years. Donald Trump is not a Buddhist. Nothing about him is Buddhist. Was this piece supposed to be funny?
3
So,, how’s your meditation going?
Yes it was supposed to be funny. And by the way what school of Buddhism does not teach people to laugh? Ken sad.
1
Buddhism? I always thought, this third person thing goes back to Julius Caesar and his book of the Gallic Wars.
Please don't take this as a criticism - in any case certainly not a personal criticism: I very much appreciate the good-natured humor of your article, but I suspect that this method is simply another manipulation of thought, and so will ultimately fail to get to the bottom of things. Who, or what, is it that thinks "Ben can't stand the taste of turnips"? Is that you? Do you feel it's you? Concerning the sentance itself, is the sentance itself correct? Is there actually a Ben in opposition to, or in addition to, not liking the taste of turnips? I'm embarrassed to think I'm trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about. In any case, I've heard it said that getting to the bottom of this is to get to the very bottom of it, leaving no remainder whatsoever. Q.E.D., as it were. I have no idea what that would mean - or, I should probably say, I don't understand it. I have heard, though, also, that it's not so much about some idea of the Self, which is maybe just another abstraction, but about Ego, which is a kind of force, a need - and a need, if the theory is correct, that can never ultimately fulfill itself, solve itself.
Loved this piece of satire.
Although, I would argue his qualities mirror that more of an extreme Islamic radicalist than a quiet loving Buddhist.
4
Jay thinks Ben is very funny. Jay looks forward to Ben's new book.
3
Sorry, but even Donald Trump has buddhanature....
2
C'mon Buddhists and Buddhist aficionados, lighten up! This piece was tongue in cheek.
1
Donald Trump is an accidental Buddhist about the same way that Pontius Pilate was an accidental Christian. I suppose one could look at Pilate's attempts to save the life of Jesus as compassionate. When he takes out the infamous hand-washing bowl, though, his apathy is apparent.
In terms of suffering, Buddhist believe there is necessary suffering and unnecessary suffering. Buddha's second-arrow story brings this difference to the fore (it can be found on Google). Buddha suffered to the very end, with arthritis and possibly food poisoning. Dolnick is missing the point about selflessness and suffering by confusing a mental illness with a Buddhist virtue.
2
One word does not make a Buddhist, no word does.
The part about "observable farts" threw me, then I got my glasses from the kitchen and saw "observable facts". Your column and many comments thereupon made me laugh this morning. And that reminded me of the important therapeutic value of laughter as rejection. It's not enough to resist -- we must reject.
3
Unintentionally, I believe, this piece gets at the root of President Trump's Nixonian mindset, e.g., his endless capacity to foist off all his mistakes and problems onto those around him, which, I believe, in psychoanalytic terms, is one of the hallmarks of a pathologically narcissistic personality disorder. There is nothing Buddhist about Mr. Trump IMHO. Indeed, he proudly proclaims his abiding Christian faith and no one should doubt for a moment his sincerity in that regard.
The reason so many right-thinking, middle of the road, non-partisan American voters refused to even consider a vote for Trump is precisely this Nixonian mental instability in the Nation's highest office.
2
The "abiding Christian faith" certainly showed up late! May be he's taking instruction from Mike.
Perhaps the real problem with DT (we all seem free to conjecture) is that no one /no one has ever loved him. And he knows it.
Another non-Buddhist, Richard Nixon, liked to refer to himself in the third person. Most famous example: “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” What else do those two have in common?
1
Interesting way to practice non-self!
Accidental Buddha.
1
Ben needs to study Buddhism; in the meantime he should keep his silly idea of it to himself. Let me know if he needs any book recommendations.
It's best not to anthropomorphize.
4
Very nice.
But on the other hand, the Buddhists of Myanmar have, most of them, confused their spiritual tradition with Bamar Nationalism, and used this "Buddhist" framework to exclude, displace, persecute and murder the Muslim minority. They are, many of them, unable to resist either the resentful inner Trump of their shifting consciousness, or the lure of the vengeful leader like U Wirathu or Sitagu. Yes they apparently also share Islamophobia with Mr Trump. They also traffic heavily in fake news, as does the President.
What is a fake Buddhist? A "fake President" A "fake person?" You would think Burmese Buddhists would conform to the "peaceful" stereotype. But instead we are being taught a more painful lesson.
The question for us all may be how to come to a state of creative, self-aware, humanity-serving presence in the world. Climbing out of our heads is part of the process but not only that. Once the head is gone, what then?
1
More like he just likes the sound of his own name.
5
The use of the 3rd person is a narcissistic attempt to elevate a person's image to that of a phenomenon rather than someone of skin and bone.
I'm surprised Trump doesn't use the royal 'We'.
4
Maybe he can play golf with the Dali Lama, who is a big hitter. Long.
And who, like Donald, the MAN-BABY, has thrown a club or two. Who hasn't?
OMG this is Adorable!
1
The New York Times has a bigger budget than any other publication— all of whom are struggling financially. Of all the stories you could write to inform people on climate disaster, nuclear war, murders by police, the dismantling of the social safety net, the death of the labor movement the the US...is this opinion piece really the defense of the public intelligence that we need right now?
“At the core of Buddhism is the concept of non-self.”
Unfortunately the author has conflated sociopathic denial with the Buddhist concept on non-self which is based in the Five Moral Precepts.
All Buddhists live by the Five Moral Precepts which are refraining from:
• harming living things
• taking what is not given
• sexual misconduct
• lying or gossip
• taking intoxicating substances eg drugs or drink
Mr. Trump appears to follow but one of five (as a self-described teetotaler) and his egoism indicates a very high infatuation with the self.
(Which is to say that the only lens he sees through is entirely self-referential and that of his own making / tweeting.)
Buddhism should have no truck with Trumpism.
3
Who stationed himself out in the hard-to-describe spaciousness where Buddhists say we'd do well to setup shop? The ego is elusively clever.
Little children also do it. Donald Trump is still a child he didn’t grow up at all.
2
For those versed in the 'Eastern Wisdom' I suspect the consensus opinion will assign The Donald into the category of Monkey Mind.
The author mentions a Buddhist concept: "non-self," yet subsequently outlines a practice which is not at all described in Buddhism. This is not Buddhism, but a philosophy of the author's own creation. This is a misrepresentation similar to claiming Christ's teaching "love thy neighbor as thyself" behooves you to go to your neighbor's house and cuddle with them in bed.
It is not obvious that the article is tongue-in-cheek. The Times would be wise to label this piece as satire to avoid misrepresenting actual Buddhist beliefs.
Most readers are unfamiliar with Buddhist doctrine and are likely to have misunderstood the author's ramblings as an actual practice prescribed in Buddhism. A fact demonstrated by the comments: many readers believed that the Buddhist concept of non-self supports the author's proposed practice of speaking in the third person. They have misunderstood the author's fascetiosness as a legitimate religious explanration for an otherwise satirical situation.
2
The first thought that came to my mind as I was reading the comments is this: NYT readers, I expect more from you.
Allow Sakata to explain (and as a practicing Buddhist for good measure)
If you were to take the SAT or GRE test right now, you would probably fail miserably on the Reading section. The author's tone is quite evidently ironic; his juxtaposition of Donald Trump and Buddhism is clearly to show that Trump IS NOT, not by any measure, a Buddhist.
The fact that so many readers actually take this piece "seriously" is pretty worrisome.
4
It appears Donald Trump and Koko the Gorilla had something else more in common, Koko spoke in the "third person" too.
1
Wow. Total fluff, and wantonly (and devastatingly) detracting from the basic teachings of the Buddha.
1
I was reminded of this:
“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”– Linji
1
Irony fail.
I feel like this commentary is incomplete without a mention of the most narcissistic third person self-referencer of them all: Jimmy from Seinfeld (Season 6, Episode 18 "The Jimmy)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apa0nG1OfUc
1
I dunno. The way Donald Trump speaks used to be known as the "royal we."
1
This does not go into the column of "why I subscribe to the NY Times".
1
Way to take a serious religion and turn it into clickbait, Ben. Here's a good primer in Buddhism 101. Be humble. Be kind. Don't talk about your practice experience. In fact, this article is a good example of the polar opposite of Buddhism, trying to be too cute by half, trvializing profound teachings and methods for understanding the nature of suffering for oneself and others. Then to clickbait that ridiculous headline is truly a sign of the bastardization of something you have been fortunate enough in this precious human birth to be exposed. Please try harder next time, Ben. It's important.
This author is an aspiring master of an over-used literary device: the unaware self-satirist. It is a sub-genre of nonsense literature.
Trump presenting himself in the third person is simply his way of bungling the Imperial We. He's as dumb as rocks. But truly believes he's a genius.
1
John thinks NYT readers need to lighten up.
4
What an unwarranted use of cyber or print space, what a waste of reader’s attention. NYT!!! please, be as selective in what gets published as you were in the print days. It’s painful that I clicked on this nonsense.
#notmyideaofapresident
Ben, I have to tell you, if I pulled that on my Hindu family, they would at first look puzzled and when they caught on to it, avoid me like the blazes. The immediate family would try to do an intervention and if that does not work, have me committed.
I have relatives, I am not ashamed to admit, who have supernatural gurus speak to and through them. I don't mind people having gurus, in India its quite common. And if your bank account is large, gurus are a required "spiritual" advisor. Its the done thing, if you are into that sort of self-expression but they are there in the flesh. Some of us tend to question them at length on their legitimacy and try to debunk them. Its a fun game.
In the case of Trump, no one around him is willing to call in the men in white coats and the GOP Congress is damned if they will do it. After all they are having the time of their lives kicking the poor and the middle class in the teeth. While at the same time sucking up to the Koch Bros and their greedy compatriots. So we are stuck with the man until one of the voices in his head tells him to push the big red button. If I hear sirens non-stop, I plan to put out my beach chair, open my best bottle of red and wait for the last big bang.
1
Is the person who wrote this article a Buddhist?
It might anger someone who cares about Buddhism to read Ben Dolnick's article and see how grossly he misunderstands and oversimplifies what he refers to, generally, as "Buddhism," as though it were one thing or was not composed, like Christianity or any other major religion, of competing views and warring factions. It might anger them to see that the New York Times has given voice to yet another mediocre white-male writer who has attached "Asianness" to himself as a means of increasing his profile, and getting a major media outlet to think that his ideas are anything more than white-washing, purposelessly, an historically, culturally and philosophically complex body of thought. What upsets this reader is that, on top of all of this, the piece's insipid nihilism, and the inability on the part of either the op-ed's editors, much less Dolnick, to recognize something which is neither insightful nor funny, but rather uses Buddhism to suggest that trump's words are mere egotism, and that at the root of these problems is one single delusion, which properly understood, would wipe clean the slate of verbal and physical abuses trump has enacted. The hell of trump's America is not your nihilistic, orientalist object lesson.
There's a common misunderstanding that the doctrine of no self refers to the normal feeling of self as an illusion, but what is often overlooked in this teaching is that the Buddha talked about the lack of any "intrinsic" self, and that word intrinsic is very important here. Intrinsic means that there is no essential permanent self. There's obviously a feeling of self in each moment, but this feeling self reflects an ever changing transient non-permanent nature to self, and that is what the doctrine of non-self really gets to.
1
A good essay on Buddhist meditation and self is "Vulnerability, Power, and the Healing Relationship," by John Welwood (a Buddhist trained in psychotherapy). It seems as if Trump is using the third person to refer to himself for a very different purpose that a Buddhist meditator would (in the first instance, for self aggrandizement, in the second instance, "to see how we are constructing and maintaining [our sense of self] causes endless tension and stress," as Wellwood puts it). This appears to be the conclusion put forward at the end of this piece. For those interested in Trump's psychology, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" (Bandy X. Lee, editor) is an excellent source. Interestingly, Nixon had a penchant for referring to himself in the third person, too (!)
1
Listen. I am not going to even read this tripe.
I am a REAL buddhist. I am insulted perpetually by the abuse of my religion as a statue decoration in a coffee shop, as a coin collector near a cash register, as a garden decoration, and the worst, as a decoration in a fashion store, to model perfume such as "SAMSARA".
Buddhist philosophy and Buddhists percepts should not be confused with Western commercialism.
And there is NO WAY Trump resembles any Buddhist thinking, philosophy, or precept that I know of and I have spent well over 40 years of my life pursuing real Buddhism in this country from real buddhist teachers.
Please stop offending we Buddhists, and please issue an apology.
38
Erm, ah, good to know and congratulations. However, the title included the word "Accidental" and we recognize the illusion of intention as distinct from mere appearance by chance. Didn't you find it somewhat awakening that your sense of indignity was aroused? I often take offense at what I perceive as the misuse of the word Karma as some sort of instant punishment. It reminds me that the best I can do is remain true to what I have learned and ready to set it aside when it has become an object of clinging.
Chris I agree with you, spineless corporate thought corrupts the soul of everything.
Sadly, there are benefits to articles like this, I have found Buddhism through an article in the NYT about a book called Search Inside Yourself that is more about mindfulness but led me to Buddhist teachings.
It really helped me change my thinking, outlook, and anxiety. Those who do sit are on the trail to understanding the difference, and maybe increasing the number sitters is more important.
I first recommended your comment, but then I started thinking:"offending Buddhists" ... is that even conceivable, once Buddhism cultivates equanimity and "loving your enemies", as Robert Thurman, the first Western to become a Buddhist monk, calls it?
Why would it be necessary for people to refer to Buddhism in a perfect way, before they'd be allowed to do so?
Moreover, Buddhism, contrary to all other religions, isn't merely a religion (a coherent tradition of beliefs and rituals, including the notion of "god"). It is also a way of life, more precisely a way of dealing with emotions that turns life into a real form of "art".
As scientists have shown over and over again during the last decades, many of the practices and ideas belonging to that very specific "art of life" are actually highly effective, AND remain so even when practiced detached from the purely "religious/cultural" aspect of Buddhism.
In other words, you can refuse to believe in reincarnation, but still become an extremely happy, balanced and compassionate person, just by rigorous meditation training.
And "your are not your thoughts and not your feelings" is a crucial part of these kind of practices.
So if an op-ed author wants to refer to it in a very casual and funny way, what would be wrong with that? There's always a comment section for us to complete things, if we believe that this is too superficial to be able to touch upon some Buddhist "truth".
The West invented science, the East psychology ...
"Donald Trump is the contemporary master of a little-used literary device: the narcissistic third person."
Wow, much ado about so little. The phenomenon of referring to oneself in third person (narcissistic?) is not as rare as Mr. Dolnick seems to think it is, although perhaps this is the case in English. It is fairly common in other languages, such as modern Hebrew and used when the speaker seeks to portray a positive image about himself or herself, but does not arouse the seemingly negative reaction that Mr. Dolnick sees in it (perhaps because Mr. Trump uses it). One does not need recourse to Buddhist teachings to understand the meaning of its use.
2
So the Donald pushes everyone's buttons, isn't the obstacle also the vehicle?
The Donald would probably be paid to stay at the monastery, just so people could get in touch with their "stuff".
2
I may have to steal, "suffers from a terminal case of self-regard." I will add it to my grief counseling this holiday season.
Buddhism also teaches that an essential part of life involves suffering, and Trump is certainly causing a great deal of suffering!
1
I remember having a continuous dialogue with Bob 40 years ago -- Bob is walking down the street; Bob is getting onto a bus; Bob is going into the museum. Bob's psychotherapist is treating Bob for a form of schizophrenia. Bob no longer thinks in the third person. Bob is cured.
Bob has learned that things are not what they seem to be, nor are they otherwise.
2
John, Bob you're scaring me.
I have a great admiration for the subtlety and heroic qualities of Buddhism and, like everyone else, am fascinated by the Trump phenomenon. The basic assumption of Buddhism is that there is no permanent self and that all suffering arises out of the tendency to identify ourselves with something that is impermanent. For this reason, Buddhism developed a language that avoided the first person singular. If the concept of “I” is the source of all suffering, we should not use it. Thus we should use the third person. Instead of, “I thought,” we should say, “A thought arose.” Instead of “I” we should say, “the Thathagatha” (the one who has extinguished the self). This is quite different from the biblical tradition where everything is a matter of relations between particular persons. The title of Martin Buber’s classic work, I and Thou, illustrates this different grammatical structure and human orientation perfectly. The use of the third person singular in Buddhism and in Trump are quite different. In Buddhism it has to do with self-abnegation. With Trump it has to do with self-aggrandizement. These is a third usage that I would like to mention. In the very poorest societies of the world, those in central Africa, I have had conversations with people who despite their abject poverty referred to themselves in the third person singular. I understood this usage to be neither that of self-abnegation nor self-aggrandizement but rather self-respect and dignity.
5
Unbelievable that people read this and think it says that Trump is enlightened. Have we become so ideologically triggered, so ready to put on mock outrage, that we can't even read anymore?
Try again, people. This was a fun, well-written essay. The author does not think Trump's use of the third person demonstrates any deep thinking on Trump's part.
6
Ben, thank you for your potentially life changing perception. Mindfulness is coming of age but seems to lack such specific methodology. William looks forward to trying it out, but he wouldn’t bet his ego on Trump or his administration similarly benefiting.
Very funny, I think try this today (but silently, as you suggest). It seems like a lot of readers missed the last two sentences.
1
While this article is meant to be "tongue in cheek," it grossly misrepresents and oversimplifies Buddhism. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated the core idea of Buddhism is that "All sentient beings want happiness and none want to suffer.” Consequently, a life well spent is one that is devoted to making this happen for yourself and others. Buddhism provides an extremely detailed path to alleviate suffering=attaining enlightenment.
Non-self or emptiness comes into play because a primary cause of suffering is the illusion that phenomena independently exist instead of being derived from multiple causes. This is very powerful when dealing with isms such as racism or sexism, because race and gender have no independent existence outside of what we conceive them to be. When we recognize this fallacy and let go of our fixed ideas, we can begin to address real problems.
Trump is the paradigmatic opposite of Buddhism's goals. Many of his policies are based upon causing someone else to suffer (immigration especially) and solidified negative ideas of race and gender. He clings fearfully to a false image of himself and becomes dangerously irrational anytime someone throws a stone at his glass house. The author's attempt to somehow connect Trump with Buddhism is seriously misguided.
1
Pathological? Yes, that would be Trump. Lying endlessly while using his fifth grade vocabulary certainly qualifies. There is, however, absolutely nothing about him that is Buddhist. Nothing.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
I know a little about Buddhism. I know a little about Trump's narcissism. I know a little about psychopathology. I even know mass psychosis like the rise of Nazism or perhaps Trumpism a la Eric Hoffer. But I don't understand the meaning or intent of this essay. Sorry!
I mean, I appreciate Mr Dolnick's swipe at Trump - I think - by distinguishing the Buddhist idea of selflessness which has been widely misunderstood as nihilism and Trump's narcissistic nihilism; however, this essay is more an exercise of mental gymnastic more about Ben than about Buddhism or Trump.
Advance apology if I took this wrong.
11
I am sympathetic to your comments but perhaps you need to regard the author's piece as an invitation to explore this Buddhist idea. When you start really dissecting the idea in detail there is actually some basis for it. But that dissection isn't included in the article.
According to Wikipedia, Ben is “a member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, publishers of The New York Times.”
Trump well may be a closet Buddhist, just not the kind you think. He's the kind like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda.
It could be worse. Watch out when he starts using the royal We.
35
actually, he already has. plus he uses 'I' way too much, so maybe his 3rd-person idiocy isn't actually our main problem with this autocrat. the supine US Senate seems entirely willing to let him dictate what legislation they will send to him for his GREAT BIG signature, and he has taken to announcing what he ('I') will 'accept'. How not King George III?
1
Interestingly, one of my favorite fictional characters also frequently refers to himself in the third person: Hercule Poirot. And while he can come across as rigid and fussy at times, no one would ever accuse him of excessive concern with self. On the contrary, he is heroic for the very fact that he frequently extends himself beyond his own tight comfort zone to help others and show compassion, while solving intriguing mysteries along the way.
13
And he originated in Agatha Christie's work as a refugee, in his case as a WWI refugee from occupied Belgium, where he occupied a position of authority as a chief of police, and was clearly a member of an educated elite (note his social mannerisms!). A hero indeed. His references to himself in the third person, however, can also be seen as evidence of the distance caused by his speaking a language not native to him. One of Christie's great virtues was her writing against national stereotypes, but to have the effect she wanted, she also often retained strong 'foreignisms' in her heroes.
4
Yes, and Hercule, at least on the PBS series (where is played by David Suchet), is able to voice complex arguments in grammatically correct, if accented, English (including the proper use of verbs in various past tense forms), yet will often say "Bonjour" instead of "Hello" or "Good afternoon," as if he was incapable of saying those basic English words or phrases. It doesn't make much sense, but I realize this is not a hard boiled murder mystery -- it is all atmospherics.
Ben I think you are confusing Authoritarian Relativism with Buddhism. Trump's my way or the highway approach to all things he cares about is nothing but his narcissistic impulse to have all things gratify the Trump ego. The third person may be cute, but no matter how thin you slice it it's still baloney.
40
The Guy In Charge is not The Guy You Talk To. It turns out that The Guy Who Is In Charge When You're Asleep is actually in charge all the time. This dawned on me relatively early in life and it continues to be an insight that has been very valuable.
There is much, much, more to Buddhism than this.
20
What do you have against the quadratic equation? Mathematicians have feelings too, you know.
25
Fun piece! Totally get it-- I remember realizing this when as a younger person I thought about questions like, "Am I authentic?" and "Am I crazy?" If someone was asking, who was that person? It was a liberating experience.
Once at a meditation workshop, participants were asked to think of a mantra they could repeat to themselves without getting distracted. I chose the radio jingle for "1-877-KARS-FOR-KIDS," and it worked remarkably well. Lessons and opportunities come from everywhere, even when they were not the intended result.
8
Jimmy likes Elaine. Jimmy holds grudges.
6
The use of third person is possibly helpful in thinking about yourself but it gets off putting when you habitually refer to yourself in the third person.
It is an excessive use of the "ille," or he, and as Mr. Dolnick concludes in the case of Trump it leans more on the side for Trump of SNA#@ as to "Trump."
Vanessa Banford for BBC News addressed "Trump" in 2015 as well as Bernie Sanders, among others, and it was quite helpful to grasp Mr. Dolnick's observations. Ms. Banford provides the following:
The technical term for it is illeism from "ille", the Latin for "he", and history provides many examples, from Julius Caesar - who wrote a history of his Gallic campaigns as if he were an objective observer rather than a protagonist - to Charles de Gaulle and Richard Nixon, basketball megastar Le Bron James and Mikhail Gorbachev. In Gorbachev's case it was one of the linguistic habits that led his rival, Yegor Ligachev, to say he was behaving like an "enlightened monarch".
Toddlers are often illeists, before they fully grasp the use of "I" and "me", so fictional characters portrayed as young children or simple-minded adults sometimes speak like this. Examples include Sesame Street's Elmo and Jimmy from the sitcom, Seinfeld. END of Ms. Banford
Ms. Banford ably discussess Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders - Mr. Dolnick likens it to Buddha; Ms. Banford likens it to Elmo. I'm going with Elmo ... I'm not going to wait for Mr. Trump to grasp or actualize.
10
A fictitious name. A character.
Maybe he's not such a bad guy.
Maybe it's just his avatar that's a bum.
2
We rely on karma.
9
This is NOT Buddhism. Your very idea of what it is, is not it! So please lets not confuse folks further than we already are!
40
Some are arguing that using the third person is pretentious and annoying to those around you... well, you don't have to speak it aloud.
4
enough pop psych Buddhism already!
14
Accidental Buddhist, NO. Intentional, self reverential Megalomaniac, YES.
Nice try.
81
Curtis thinks Ben's doubts are more than justified. But look at it this way:
If you inhabited Donald Trump's body/persona, wouldn't the real you rather be as far away from it as possible?
34
I remember reading an interview with Tony Schwartz who co wrote the Art of the Deal with Donald Trump. The author said taht he asked Trump if he looked at himself seriously (introspection) and Trump's reply was something like, no, I may not like what i see.
1
In other words, what you're saying is that speaking of yourself in the third person gives you the power of self-reflection, the ability to think about the way you think. Theoretically, you could carry this out to deeper levels, thinking about the way you think about how you think and so on. Perhaps carrying this out to infinitude is one way of describing what Buddhists mean by enlightenment?
7
Ben made Luis laugh. Thank you Ben.
57
This a such a stretch. Trump is the self centered demon, enjoying the suffering of others. The Dharma. the teachings of Buddha, is essential to serenity in the face of such evil.....
10
and compassion is at the heart of Buddhism
1
Well, Trump does look a little like a "fat Buddha"...but that's another story.
10
Trump is the first existentialist and/or nihilistic President.
2
Ben needs to do his homework. Ben should read about illeism and think about its psychological roots pertaining to Trump. Ben should do this before Ben writes trifle opinion pieces.
15
Quit clever TT
Nor only has Mango Musolini found some inner Budhist well spring, his juvenile syntax suggests that he is channeling an inner Yoda as well.
"Hungry is Trump. Cake he wants. With two scoops. Fake is the news. Teump is demented it says. Magnificent he is."
10
I love the phrase “Mango Mussolini”.
1
Ben,
There is *nothing* profound about Trump.
Google "Stockholm Syndrome".
Get the help that you need.
19
Accidental (and minority) President.
4
Could there be a Ben who doesn't doubt it?
We agree.
4
Ha. Amusing article. The core of Buddhism may be the concept of non-self, but the core of Trumpism is "le monde, c'est moi."
19
He's not Buddhist. He is, however, detached from suffering. But not out of growth, out of limitation. Pretty sure what we all got here is a psychopath. Not crazy in the sense of disordered, nor detached in the sense of ability to rise above suffering, above feeling. He's cray in the sense that he is destructive, and detached because he has no conscience. And he doesn't think like you or me. He can't, his neural network is not as complex. Hence, the ease of detachment. No higher order thinking to get in the way. This guy is crazy clear.
50
Trump is hideous, 'USA, USA, USA,' is America.
Our worst selves are our true selves. What separates my bad from me is empathy. Trump has none.
10
I had to read Caesar's Gallic Wars in high school. Caesar always referred to himself in the third person as he and his armies raped and pillaged through Gaul, keeping neat accounts of how many people they had enslaved. This experience left me with the impression that only psychopaths refer to themselves in the third person. Nothing in recent times has changed my mind.
27
Brilliant.
No one in high school reads that anymore. Sadly.
This sort of precious nonsense will win over no-one to Buddhism. Or that Ben or Donald are self-reflective.
5
Trying to be clever with this thesis of Trump as a Buddhist insults the millions who are sensitive to self/non-self and to the many sufferings and desires that cause us all so much angst.
I have a different thesis: Trump uses third person because he thinks he is more than himself, not absent of self. His hubris is destroying all he touches.
18
The full extent of Trump’s philosophizing: “I tweet, therefore I scam. “
18
Absurd. Following the Noble Eightfold Path takes something more than making a slight adjustment to one's grammar.
9
Brilliant little essay, and quite amusing. Jerry doesn't think Ben wanted to launch a philosophical discussion.
10
Nothing accidental about trump. His inhumanity is quite intentional. After all, trump is the smartest person he knows.
Narcissistic third person is how trump worships himself - the true Deity he worships and demands the same of everyone around him. When asked about his personal sacrifices, he described success and making lots of money as personal sacrifices to trump - yet he alone benefits from his so called sacrifices - no one else.
Writing of inhumanity, the closest trump comes to Buddhism is to those radical Buddhist extremists in Myanmar.
What's the deal with Buddhists in Myanmar? My entire life I have "believed" Buddhists to be peaceful practitioners of a peaceful tolerant faith. Turns out they are no different than any other religions in their cruelty and inhumanity, using twisted religious dogma, in the third person or not, as pretexts to hurt others.
Rohingya, Rohingya, Rohingya. Myanmar Buddhists and the militant government should contemplate and meditate on that: They exist. They are not an illusion. They are human-beings worthy of life, liberty and happiness too.
Perhaps the UN should revoke Resolution 181 giving the Rohingya a nation of their own. They just might behave more responsibly than the current residents.
Single religion authoritarianism around the world demonstrates, proves their danger - regardless of the religion. Now the evangelicals want to impose their flavor of authoritarian Christianity on everyone in America too. PAN says no way!
12
There's a quote out of Laozi, "Zhi zhe bu yan, yan zhe bu zhi." In English, "Knowers don't talk, Talkers don't know." It is Daoism but it shares a lot with some Buddhist sects (Zen, for instance). And it correctly describes your diatribe, which I'm sure PAN thought was very smart.
If you wanted to know something about Buddhism, you would, if you wanted to know something about Myanmar you would. Which basically puts you in the same pile as Trump. You don't know and you think you're to smart to need to.
But just like Mr. Trump, you're good at being offensive.
2
Bravo.
Ben needs to find something real to write about. All the pontification these days particularly on Buddhism, mindfulness and the like especially from people not well versed is becoming increasingly annoying. This qualifies as one of the most un-buddhist screeds I'v ever encountered.
15
I used to be into Buddhism but found it over my head. Just tell me who is responsible for this mess, Trump's words and feelings or this ethereal other thing. I want to make sure we get the right guy. He is very good at avoiding accountability. Buddhism sounds like something he might try.
2
wrong. Buddhism makes an individual accountable for EVERYTHING he or she thinks and does. Trump lies as a way of thinking. He has NO CLARITY.
5
The column is good.
The headline (which I know may not have been chosen by the author) -- "Donald Trump, Accidental Buddhist" -- is as offensive as the comparisons of Roy Moore to Jesus because of his interest in young girls.
6
To scrutinize Buddhism from within an intellectual framework, as this article does, is equally as absurd as analyzing Trump from within an intellectual framework. A whole lot of effort grasping at nothing.
6
As a Buddhist who understands that nothing is permanent, I take comfort in knowing that The Donald too shall cease to be, hopefully sooner rather than later.
I for one hope to be here when his selfish self ceases to be. Aum.
19
Trump's third-person self is not a "no-self," it is an aggrandized royal "my self is bigger than any other self."
No sign of Buddhism here, just very large narcissism, encompassing first, second (esp. second person plural--"we") and third person pronouns: his infantile ego contains multitudes.
5
Brings to mind the Buddhist centered book ‘Thoughts Without a Thinker” certainly Trump is that.
8
On behalf of all Buddhists: Please do not refer to the Donald as a Buddhist, even as a joke. There is nothing about him that is even remotely Buddhist.
14
Buddhist, I don't know.
Psychiatrists always have a hard time deciding whether mass murderers and people like Trump are crazy; but if you ask psychiatrists' mothers nine times out of ten they will tell you straight off these people are meshuggah and leave the question right there.
5
Mr. Dolnick, please thank Ben for the laugh if you see him. As the Buddhists say, every moment rises, dwells and falls away, though it doesn't feel like this nightmare's end is in sight.
10
With our Fake President, it's merely his "inner" Nixon speaking. And that is decidedly not "demonstrating his enlightenment", but furthering his descent into a dangerous, narcissistic darkness.
3
Nixon was never ever as bad as Trump.
That was great fun, Ben! I look forward to reading your upcoming book.
At the risk of spoiling the sport and sounding constipated, I'd like to pick the nit that the fleeting perspective you achieve by referring to yourself in the third person is hardly the eradication of the ego described by the Buddhists. It is rather more like a snake momentarily looking back at its just-sloughed-off skin.
12
Your view is incorrectly described as Buddhist: the uniqlo clad lump of meat is NOT there as you perceive it, if there at all. What you perceive is a mental appearance dependent on the object and your senses and the “predispositions” of your mind. If you had microscopic vision you would see atoms and huge amounts of space, or if modern physics is correct not even that as particles = waves = energy = insubstantiality. Per Tibetan thought you are describing only selflessness of person, not selflessness of phenomena.
1
Some children growing up have "an invisible friend". Usually this goes away by the time their age enters double digits. Donald apparently still has his.
4
On taking the Oath of the Presidency, 'One solemnly swears to...', which does not sound right. 'I am your Voice', from the lips of Trump also makes this American recoil. A Remittance President is more like it, where Buddhism will never feature.
An Accidental Man finds himself swept up by circumstances beyond his capacity to understand, entangled in world affairs that he is unable to keep up with, and in desperation, looks for pins to place in vulnerable areas of our planet to keep our Allies and Foes on their toes, a greater divide than ever in the conflicted times we are living.
America retreats into isolationism, and the dismantling of our Nation continues under tags and labels that the President places on dubious names without honor, decency or patriotism.
'Keep them guessing' is his motto, while he self-destructs and takes the Country with him. Watch Europe unravel in a state of fragmentation, and leave Putin to pick up the pieces. Take away our health plans, increase taxation, ignore climate change, leave us to drown in mistrust and confusion, inspire the fear of God in The People.
Surrender and resign, Mr. Trump. You are no President, no King, and we are watching the demise of your stable of horsemen, maidens and knights. The Nation shudders.
1
'Ben highly doubts it' - lolcats - thanks for the belly chuckle - good for my stomach !
yes you've nailed it with the buddhist 'witness' to your thoughts - meditation - watch thoughts passing by - don't attach - let them go and you'll be free as a bird to fly, etc.
that would be great if/when we saw the tweeter-in-chief as a placid bestower of wisdom and virtue, but somehow ... that's a joke, right ?
why all his anger ? - I loved this article I read yesterday - https://neighbourhoodpaper.com/features/love-sick-intimacy-trump/
1
If I were a Buddhist, would be really worried right now.
Trump is going to pick up on your suggestion and will claim that he is a Buddhist and doing Buddha's work.
3
Buddha NEVER EVER EVER said follow him. Buddha never asked anyone to do "his work". The Buddha never thought of himself as a Messiah and he never asked people to FOLLOW him.
4
As far as I know, the Buddha never referred to himself in the third person, but
here are 11 people, in addition to Trump, who did (all men, interestingly enough): Bob Dole, Bo Jackson, Seinfeld's Jimmy, Ricky Henderson, Elmo, Julius Caesar, Salvador Dali, Pele, Charles de Gaulle, The Rock, Geraldo Rivera.
(Source: Mental Floss.com/11 Famous Illeists)
NO! There is NO WAY I can think of Donald Trump as a Buddhist.
I've heard the Dalai Lama speak about Compassion. Donald has no understanding of compassion and empathy.
Donald's use of the third person is the royal we. He thinks he king and the thoughts in his head speak for the whole of America. He's WRONG!
2
Trump is a sociopath who cannot recognize the feelings of others. He is a taker and a bully sociopath. He is dangerous.
There is no spoon, OK? Many people, the best people, are saying this, believe me.
4
I liked this essay because it made me grin. Let us not attack Ben for misused Buddhist definitions, or assume he accidentally used them incorrectly.
6
It was FUNNY, people!!!!!!
Sadly, Mr. Dolnick has failed to fully express the teachings of the Buddha in his little essay. Nor has he transcended the problem of expressing the ineffable, foolishly ignoring Dongshan’s advice that just to depict in literary form is to stain it with defilement. How can we appreciate this audacious effort ?!
1
You miss the point entirely about Trump's habit of referring to "Trump" in the third person. One of the primary characteristics of a personality disorder is the absence of a sense of self, with its deeply empty core. There is no "there" there. The narcissist, to feel real, must find ways to fill the bottomless emptiness. How? Manufacture a persona that stands for the missing person. He's created a "better" version of himself (the real one is misery incarnate) that he can then point to and say, "That's me." He exists only as a fictional creation, abetted by the media. That's why he can't live without television. It's the only thing that gives him a sense that he exists. Turn off the TV and he'll melt like the witch doused from Dorothy's bucket of water. He keeps his image on that screen by continual attention grabs, which the media obliges, since it helps them sell more soap. If he sees he's not the center of attention, he does something outrageous: taking away 2 million acres of sacred land, banning Muslims from entering the country, endorsing Roy Moore, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, all to keep his image on the screen. Doesn't matter if it make sense. He has to feed the bottomless pit. He's the insatiable monster who devours the world. Anyone who has survived a relationship with someone with a personality disorder recognizes this textbook case. The rage, the disregard for others, the total lack of empathy, the cruelty. It's a horrifying sight. And it doesn't end well.
10
I think Trump considers himself as the ultimate embodiment of the Trump Brand. There’s nothing deep about it.
I have noticed that many self-obsessed people see themselves as, essentially, the stars of their own movies. Everything that happens to them is a major drama. Everything they say or think — and later repeat for their friends or colleagues — is wise or amusing. These people quote themselves incessantly. When you say something happened to you, these friends or acquaintances will interrupt with stories about their own experiences. They are “the most interesting (people) in the world.” We all know people like this. Some of us even have relatives of this sort. Social media is rife with them.
Does Trump see himself as the center of his world? Does he watch (and admire) himself from a distance, mentally directing his features to look (to his mind) important and (laughing here) handsome? Oh, yes. He most certainly does. I think that is the root of all the problems in his messy, scary, insane presidency. The man does not, in his heart of hearts, believe that this is all real.
2
I was going to write my comments, but now it seems counter-intuitive to do so. Instead ...
Reader notes synchronicity. Trump and Ben. Ben and Trump. Duality. Yet neither beyond monkey mind. Ben must start Eightfold Way, which Trump mispronounces as "hateful way". That is: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right "samadhi" (meditative absorption or union). OK, Reader notes Trump needs plenty of work on the first seven. But Trump notes that right samadhi is fake news. Yet Reader not there to contradict Trump.
Ohmmm. Glad Reader got that off Reader chest.
4
In Trumps case, It is demonstrating his endarkenment, not his enlightenment.
He clearly has not dwelled on the possibility that he is not the entity we call a person; subject to life and death, time- space and the possibility of transcendance. Unfortuntely, he has no humor also which cancels his membership card to the enlightened Buddha club. Trump's destructive third person is void of Buddhist intentions, to say the least... A funny well written piece though. enjoyed it.
5
When speaking of Donald Trump, I don't think it quite fair to characterize Elmo as "deeply immature."
8
HIs delusions of grandeur make it the "royal we." Time for the corrupt ruler to be dethroned?
This is a frivolous article. I know it's intended as humour with a little philosophy thrown in, but creating any link between Trump and Buddhism is offensive. There is nothing funny and certainly nothing deep about Trump and the harm he causes in the world.
2
Remember Seinfeld"s episode called "The Jimmy"? I think Seinfeld should do one more episode for old times sake and call it, "The Trump". It would probably be the funniest of all of his episodes.
1
For all of the Seinfeld fans who remember "Jimmy," always referring to himself in the third person (Jimmy's new in town) we saw him as weird and billigerant
Sound like someone familiar? Unfortunately he's in the White House SAD
4
What a fun little game. Donald talks about Donald. Ben discovers that referring to himself in the third person is kind of wonderful. The resulting vacuous inner monologue is mostly harmless. The little Donald captain, however, who lives somewhere behind Donald's forehead and looks out from Donald's eyes, having a blast driving his meat train around destroying everything and anything he wants, is anything but.
What this has to do with Buddhism escapes me, but I do find the image a compelling metaphor for what is in charge of the most powerful machine on this earth. And that's not nearly as wonderful as Ben-ing.
4
Yep -- my own brief comment was sufficiently cutting that Moderation didn't even publish it.
1
Trump is no Zen Master. He is disassociating himself from himself so he need take no responsibility. If he pushed the nuclear button, in his mind it would be someone else that actually did it. This would allow him to easily push that button.
Trump is stepping outside himself, he is objectifying his self-image. He has an alt-personality to go with his alt-reality.
A Zen Master would drop body and mind, and then drop the dropping. There would be no objectification. Nothing to see and no one to see it. What's left?
1
Ben has been seen through those pesky thoughts of the inner narrator. Ben retreats to the first person to review the third. My question it: Won't you need another to review the third. You will look at the Ben as a total stranger in an analog of split personalities, all casting jaundice eye on the others. Is it a poem or a book, this interior voyage?
Trump is not the accidental Buddhist but an accidental president.
Good explanation of the true value of the non self but in practice this is not in evidence in many "Buddhist" countries. In SEA the non self is so conjured that it has become a self obsessed me only venture with lots of burning of incense and giving of rice to monks as if on a path to non self when in reality it is all about me, me, me . Perhaps Trump and his followers are really these kind of fake Buddhists.
1
Buddhists are a kind and gentle lot. Detachment is but a small part of the philosophy of Buddhism and it is to be used to manage suffering. It is sort of like our secular mantra of "I need to let it go". I guess you could make a sort of convoluted argument that Trump doesn't get caught up in emotional maelstroms but the caveat is that he causes them for everyone else. This is very much against the Buddhist philosophy. Trump is a lot of things but religious or even spiritual is not one of them.
3
The obvious difference between Buddha and Trump can be seen in what HH The Dalai Lama asks us to view and act in the world with "loving kindness." Trump, on the other hand, views and acts in the world for the benefit of Trump. Everything else is secondary to that prime directive.
So whilst this is an interesting observation in grammatical linguistics, one should not just due a superficial reading at the surface level, but see if the actions match the beliefs and practice that linguistic perspective implies as a viewing construct. In short, does the walk match the talk?
The whole self/non-self issue may be more akin to Schrodinger's Cat. Is there a self in there or not? You don't know until you look. Buddha looked. Trump is oblivious.
5
The liberal left and the hardcore conservative right seem to share one trait--little sense of when one is having fun. I had fun reading his article. But much less fun nor enlightenment reading so many of the replies.
Read Siddhartha by Herman Hesse and lighten up. I am not liberal and too often lonely in my strong conservatism. But I enjoyed this article. And I guess I shall have to add righteous liberals and rights conservatives into my bedtimes prayers tonight. May they have a life and may they learn to enjoy some Tibetan joy, love, and hard scrabble toughness.
The next time you are at hot yoga class imagine yourself walking at 23,000 feet in Nepal and encountering several monks in a thin yellow cotton robe and sandals drinking yak buttered tea and enjoying the beauty of the dawn, squatting down for some meditation, and then walking up a steep trail.
My very tough Sherpa Mt Everest guide used to shake his head in admiration of these monks.
2
On the other hand, the Buddha would surely say that Trump has Buddha-nature. To say otherwise would be discrimination.
1
Describing the Buddhist concept of non-self as "inhabiting a perspective outside my usual one" misses the point somewhat. Living in the 'non-self' refers to simply being present in each moment, with compassion, with just what is. It is a step in the right direction to be "not so sure" of our own perceptions, but relabeling them falls short.
This discovery corresponds to the IFS (Internal Family Systems) therapy model, which posits that our thoughts and feelings come from parts -- which, as a whole, can be summed up as the "ego" or "personality" -- while our core compassionate consciousness is referred to as the Self.
I know the article was written in jest about our rather narcissistic president. However, I must say, "Wow, because a person thinks of himself in the third person, that is somehow related to the rather profound teaching of 'not-self' in Buddhism? It's not necessary to be a moral person or develop skill in meditation; one only needs to think of oneself in the the third person?" I enjoyed your article, but to think that one can truly realize the teaching of not-self by merely thinking of oneself in the third person is a bit over the top. What next? The equally important Buddhist teaching of having great compassion for all living beings is well represented by Trump's love for the wealthiest 1%? Again, I actually liked your article, but I did want to point out some things that I think are important to be aware of with respect to the Buddha's teachings.
It is an established fact that many many children and adults who frequently, and I mean really frequently, refer to themselves in the 3rd person, are on the autism spectrum. I say this as parent who was befuddled by my son's usage until I found out....
2
While I enjoyed reading this opinion I cannot wonder if referring to oneself in the third person via twitter, etc. isn't more of a marketing tool. I think that this method is familiarizing others with one's name than anything else - anything to brand the name.
3
Nixon did exactly the same thing and it was widely noticed and discussed at the time.
3
I admit to ignorance about Buddhist teachings, but 'my' 'thought' on this is that we 'think' in whatever language(s) we have been taught, but observe ourselves doing the 'thinking' as if we are beyond) this linguistic process, much as we have been taught to speak and to understand what others are speaking. And it is in the same way that we can 'stand off' and apprehend our emotions and other neurological responses within our bodies. What i don't understand is the nature of whatever it is doing this observing, as if from some distance from it. Religions may refer to this awareness as the 'soul', but this explanation depends on 'faith' which, frankly, like language, is just something else we are taught by others. Biology considers the experience a physiological process. But that doesn't really answer the question, either.
great article,well written with a lively choice of words evaporating the smoky subject.
Any mention of Trump and Buddhism in the same sentence is misguided. If you don't understand Buddhism (as others have commented) and it's been fairly well established, although not with definitive medical diagnosis, that Trump is a narcissist, there's little to offer readers by combining the two. Please don't.
Quite naturally, as he is a Westerner and has been conditioned to think as such, Mr. Dolnick views Buddhism from a self-centered western perspective, which is based upon the idea that there exists within each of us a fixed and permanent essence such as a soul that is unique to each of us. This notion is one that all monotheistic religions adhere to.
Buddhism is a non-theistic religious system. The core function of its doctrine is the study of the mind, what it is and how it functions, principally within the realm of cause and effect, also referred to as the realm of Dukkha or, suffering. Buddhism's main concern is the alleviation of suffering. Buddhism's core principal is that suffering is caused by attachment or clinging to illusory phenomena that is generated by the mind. Its training matrix uses practices that have been proven over time to effectively manage clinging to illusory mental phenomena thereby helping to alleviate all human suffering. A person who enters this training matrix with a verified teacher is considered to have raised the mind that desires to live an enlightened life for the benefit of all beings, which does by the way include the self.
The core difference here is that Buddhism understands that one cannot live a life free from suffering, or even a life where the possibility of alleviating suffering exists, if one focus entirely on one's own desires, or on one's illusory and impermanent self.
3
I wonder if we are trying to discuss mindfulness, or (Vipassana, a technique that instead of reacting automatically, allows us to be an observer of a situation. Rather than being reactive, we can act more consciously. Esra Gunaydin). And similarly, cognitive behavioral therapy. All names for a way of thinking ("not your self, not your feelings") that encourages us to see things, (our self, others, our world) from a position "outside" our usual, reacting self. Practiced regularly, this skill enables one to observe events more calmly, and from a larger perspective.
I do not think this is what Trump is trying to do. But it would be very much better if he did. K
I'd had this very thought before Ben, awesome article that demonstrates a thorough understanding of our REALity.
We need to learn to identify as the watcher, not the watched. Then perhaps we can be as seemingly aloof as Trump, though hopefully not as dim-witted.
2
Excellent article - really well written. And funny too!
4
Louise seconds that
No, what the author knows as Buddhist non-self, is in Trump's case the lack of psychological depth of the narcissist. The strong reaction to perceived or real attacks (the ego injury) comes about because there's nothing behind the person's superficial front. The self is empty (not in the Buddhist good way). Moreover, in Trump's case, his seemingly erratic behavior is part of a psychopathic process in which the person seeks to exploits others and changes his/her behavior depending on how, in their view, the can benefit from the immediate interaction. Were he not born to a wealthy father, he would've ended up in prison a long time ago. Non-impulsive psychopaths are much more calculating (like the Enron executives). Robert Hare (who coined the term psychopathy) called them snakes in suits.
1
What we mean when they say "no self" is that there is nothing that exists permanently and unto itself. With careful examination (i.e., meditation) it becomes clear that there is nothing at all about our actual experience of reality that remains the same over time. All there is is coming and going sensations. Everything is continually flowing, changing. And these sensations are immediate. There is no experience of "other things". There is no outside. There is only the experience of the sensation itself right here and now.
I hope that helps. It's such an extraordinarily subtle teaching. But it's worth the effort. It really does lead to total liberation from suffering.
And it's important. I actually believe that this fundamental realization is the only thing that can save humanity from itself.
2
cheryl doubts it too. And Trump is clearly not his thoughts because he would be hard pressed to identify any thoughts to identify with.
5
One famous blowhard's mention of himself in the third person reminds me of another, Julius Caesar. Although clearly part of his literary style, Caesar was also sure to have his name repeated often enough to remind the proletariat who exactly was their hero. With lines from the Bello Gallico often describing him as practically prescient, infallible, and mythical in his "good sense."
Whether Caesar himself needed to see his own name repeated ad infinitum is a matter for the classical scholars.
However, we are lucky that we also have the ability to memorialize the deeds of Trump in spotlights of truth other than that of Trump's skewed version of himself, whether his are in third or first person.
4
The author misunderstands the concept of non-self, which is clearly articulated by Thich Nhat Hanh, who some have called 'the living Buddha'. Non self means that our physical being is comprised of non-self elements, our parents, our grandparents, our entire mammalian physical heritage, sunshine, the air we breathe, and the earth itself.
The primary idea being that without these other elements, we would not be, we would not exist. This speaks to the idea of the interconnectedness of us to all other living beings, a concept that Native American people have understood for millennia.
I have followed Buddhist teachings for about thirty years, but have never taken to the idea of saying 'Tim is having a trying day'. To say something along those lines is pretentious, and frankly, likely to be annoying to most people around us.
95
"Non-self elements" immediately implies a dualistic worldview of this versus that, the very root of the problem. To identify with a particular physical being is already a mistake.
Non-self means... non-self. Very straight-forward. We are the one infinite consciousness, not the limited particular that comes and goes in a "world" of "time" and "space" (all inventions of the human mind).
Check out Deepak Chopra, he shoots it straight.
1
'pretentious' ? - guess you missed the joke/irony
and - your 'I know better' reply can be seen as condescending - which is not a good look for a buddhist scholar - unless of course you're selling something, in which case you have a natural interest to seek to profit from your 'superior' knowledge.
1
Luciana thinks that Tim should lighten up.
The estimable Thich Nhat Hanh has an eccentric view on non-self. Not wrong, he just comes at it from a different angle than other living buddhas.
Luciana thinks that Ben's view is widely accepted as well.
Mr. Dolnick,
The title of this article should read Donald Trump - Accident!
33
Trust other Buddhists to debate you, Ben--that's part of the tradition too. I loved this essay!
31
If they were truly Buddhist, they wouldn't have the need to debate.
4
I always considered people who refer to themselves in the third person rather self-possessed (and pompous), and Trump's use of that verbal gambit confirms my suspicion. Besides, the idea of non-self is a little more complex, and some hold that you cannot fully grasp it without a very generous dose of meditation. But for what it's worth, the Buddha never claimed that there's no self or that it is an illusion--he just explained (e.g., here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html) that the self (i.e., an enduring quality or presence) cannot be found in the body, feeling, perceptions, mental formations, or consciousness, because all of these things (or "aggregates") are impermanent and unsatisfactory. He apparently demurred when asked whether there is a self (or atman, as the soul was known at that time). So that ultimate question still awaits solving....
22
It's hard to think of a comparison that is less apt. In one case, the object is to inflate one's ego so that it passes mere egomania and consumes the whole country and beyond. In the other, it's to get rid of the ego altogether. Except for that and, you know, every other quality that the Buddha had, they're a lot alike.
39
The body shapes may be similar!
1
"Except for that and, you know, every other quality that the Buddha had, they're a lot alike." I think that was the point! #irony and/or sarcasm
3
There are a number of traditional Buddhist formulas similar to this, but you need to take it a little farther. Saying "Ben can't stand the taste of turnips" still assumes there is a persistent object in the world called "Ben" that owns opinions. Ask yourself "Who is Ben" or even better "What is Ben" and listen to the silence that follows. In that silence is the truth about who you really are. You will probably also need some serious time on the cushion to make this work.
28
...and embrace one's oneness with turnips!
While it's possible to argue that Buddhists and Trump both dwell on the concept of ‘non-self’, it is not possible to argue that they both have the same intentions for doing so. Far from it. The former has altruistic intentions and the latter is based solely on egotistical purposes. So what’s the use of drawing parallels here?
21
This piece is tongue-in-cheek, right?
The intention behind one's conduct in the world is key to following the eight-fold path. When Trump refer's to himself in the third person, it has less to do with "not self" than with self-aggrandizement, as in the royal "we."
45
Buddhism teaches that one's thoughts are merely biassed reactions to the illusions that one's mind has forced upon one's consciousness.
Go watch the film Muholland Drive, and try to argue with the film's central premise -- that one's consciousness must shut down periodically, via Silence.
4
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Mr. Trump could actually follow the logic and understand the key points of Mr. Dolnick's piece? If his continuing invocation of himself in the third person was the sign of a man struggling to be fully self-aware and not just another howling of a bottomless, terrifyingly insecure ego?
That's not our world. Our world is the one where someone with enduring daddy issues and a narcissism so profound that it constitutes a cognitive impairment controls the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and who does things like upending the politics of the Middle East just to show he can.
Donald Trump, accidental president. Accidental human.
37
Very low self esteem with ADD.
1
People who are narcisstic, self obsessed and detached from reality usually speak in the" third person". Donald Trump exactly fits into that personality pattern. He is nothing to do with Buddha, he has not even heard of Buddha. Please do not insult Buddha.
160
Buddha cannot be insulted, just as the wind cannot be insulted.
7
have you heard the zen saying 'if you meet the buddha, kill him' ? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan#Killing_the_Buddha
meaning - do not worship others - find your own path.
5
Is it possible to insult Buddha? If so, what is the nature of the insult, to intimate that this Buddha thing is less exalted, or is it more a matter of being satisfied that one has fully understood what cannot be comprehended, but only practiced by the Noble Eightfold Path.
1
Our Anti-Christ-and-Anti-Buddhist-In-Chief is neither Buddhist nor Christian, but he does practice one aspect of Buddhism exceptionally well.
“You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.” – Buddha
He even disgraces Buddhism....quite a deplorable feat.
71
No, not "as much as." That would be only a start.
1
That's only true if you define "love" in a non-Buddhist way (maybe in a way proposed by certain Christian theories, where cultivating a strong sense of original sin/culpability is supposed to be more virtuous than to learn to love yourself... ?).
There's a famous story about the Dalai Lama who, a couple of years ago, was attending a Congress about neuroscience and Buddhism, where Western scientists debated scientific studies and Buddhist approaches of psychotherapy.
During a Q&A session, a Western psychiatrist asked the Dalai Lama how he helps patients suffering from self-hate.
As his English is limited, a translator tried to explain the question to him, but he didn't seem to understand it. He ended up grasping more or less what "self-hate" means, and then asked the audience, puzzled: "How many of you ever had a patient who hates himself?". Most Western physicians raised their hand.
So there's clearly a cultural difference here: children growing up in Tibet learn how to love themselves from the very beginning, so to them, loving yourself is SO easy and automatic that once adults, they cannot even imagine that you could hate yourself. The challenge in life is to do what Christ already said: to learn to love others as much as yourself (especially your enemies). Whereas in the West, self-hate seems to be endemic, as the "mea culpa mea culpa ma maxima culpa" mantra is what we tend to grow up with.
Conclusion: Trump clearly suffers more from self-hate than true self-love..
1
Donald Trump, accidental Buddhist? That is great insult to Buddha.
At the core of Buddhism is the concept of non self, but Trump is totally" self".
66
Don't forget that according to Buddhism, "self" is an illusion, so nobody can "be" self, let alone "totally self".
And then there's the fact that for Buddhists, there's a Bouddha in each one of us, even in Trump ... ;-)
I agree, though, that you cannot possibly take Trump's explicit referral to himself as "Trump", as somehow being linked to a Buddhist practice, as he's clearly NOT doing so in order to make himself understand that his own thoughts and feelings are NOT "himself", but rather to increase his popularity among a certain part of the American people that is sensitive to self-aggrandizing in other people and sees it as a sign of power and something to look up to.
6
By totally "self", I meant totally ego. In Trump's case it is all ego .
I agree with you, in Buddhism true self is an illusion, there is no "true self" or atman ( anatta) .
5
@ Padman (second comment)
With all respect, I don't see how you can integrate the idea that someone would be "all ego" into Buddhism.
Buddhism indeed is based on the notion that the ego/self is an illusion, but being an illusion precisely means that it does NOT exist.
Trump, however, does exist. So by definition, from a Buddhist perspective he too IS a Buddha, and that - and ONLY that - is his true essence.
And it's precisely through learning to see the Buddha in every person, without ANY exception, that you can start to feel how your own self/ego and its emotions of fear, anger and hatred are actually illusions, mistakes caused by your own suffering (and causing new suffering, for yourself and for those around you).
In other words, not seeing the Buddha in someone you hate, is being blinded by an illusion, it does NOT mean that the person you hate would himself "be" an illusion. He's a Buddha, just like you.
For the same reason, if we want to restore some basic decency in this country, we better don't imagine that Trump is an "illusion", but go out and vote next November ... ;-)
1
You have misunderstood or misrepresented Buddhism. The no-self doctrine is indeed one part of Buddhism's medieval philosophical tradition. But it is incorrect (historically & philosophically) to construe this idea as Buddhism's central insight. Buddhism in fact starts (as expressed in the earliedt known Buddhist texts, the Pali Canon) from Siddhartha Gotama's insistence on the benefits of enhanced self-awareness, and the benefits of conscientious kindness to self and others -- qualities clearly and sadly less than abundant in Mr. Trump. Eihei Dogen, the founder of Zen, famously wrote: "to study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things." Note that prior to forgetting the self (i.e. realizing the insubstantial and illusory nature of an autonomous self independent from other people and the physical world, aka no-self), Dogen instructs us to study it. There is usually nothing accidental in the decision to embark on ethical and psychological self-scrutiny of the type to which Dogen alludes. Still, we can turn to another Buddhist axiom, the impermanence of all phenomena, for reassurance that the impact of harmful and unkind actions is necessarily time-limited; and to the concept of no-self for reassurance that none of us is alone in the struggle for justice and universal love.
120
Still, consider this truth, I do not exist.
Isn't stating that someone has "misunderstood" or "misrepresented" the correct doctrine itself, dare I say it, a little bit against the spirit of open-mindedness that infuses buddhist traditions?
1
Funny ... but there seems to be something crucial missing here: Buddhism also teaches that (and how) you have to learn to LOVE your thoughts and feelings, all while realizing that they are not "you". And the extent to which you learn to love them, equals the extent to which you can then be loving and compassionate with other people.
Seen like this, Trump clearly isn't using the third-person as a way to build an interior, Buddhist dialogue with his thoughts and feelings, but merely inserting it in his speech/tweets as part of his rhetorical tricks designed to be able to lie even more to his voters and STILL make them adore him, no matter how much his policies are betraying his campaign promises and no matter how much Congress is passing bills that do the exact opposite of what he promised ... .
And then there's also the fact that you cannot possibly call that campaign agenda "compassionate" ... .
Is it truly impossible, then, to mention Trump and Buddhism in the same sentence? It certainly isn't. As he's exhibiting his flaws on a daily basis, he's a perfect illustration of what Buddhism calls the "inner enemies" of "anger and fear", so seeing them in him may help us to see those same enemies in ourselves, AND to learn how to do something about it, that actually benefits yourself AND your inner and outer enemies.
29
yes, exactly. incessant reminder for ME to wake up! eventually, i shall muster gratitude for this non-stop lunancy. right?
2
Donovan wrote a song with the Buddhist Proverb:
"First there is a mountain, Then there is no mountain, Then there is."
Trump has gone very far down level one: seeing something without seeing its reality. It only superficially looks like level three.
Or so I opine.
11
Self-observation seems to be a beneficial practice. Self-referential utterances in the third person are more often a sign of a divided self.
49
Great explanation of the difference. Based on his behavior Trump is likely many many lifetimes away from even getting close to curiosity about what the Buddha has to teach. But thank you Ben for bringing a conversation about the nature of Supreme Consciousness to the pages of the New York Times ;-)
4
Ben's doubt is correct. Buddhists endeavor to reduce the suffering of all beings. That part does not come through in the Buddhist-Trump analogy...
42
I have been wondering about this third person usage for a while and wondering why no one was commenting on it. I agree with some other posters that a Buddhist slant on it is not quite right. One might instead link this behavior to that of serial killers who describe their actions as if a disembodied essence made them occur. "Then she was stabbed 26 times." Closer, no?
37
Reduce suffering by non attachment and letting go of the ego and duality. Not necessarily to reduce the suffering of all beings. Suffering is life.
1